In Baker v. State, 878 P.2d 642 (Alaska App. 1994), the Court declared that subsection (f) "appears to strengthen, not relax, the requirement of the permit-holder's presence". Specifically, the Court interpreted subsection (f) as meaning that even in circumstances when sub sections (d) and (e) might allow the permit-holder to be absent from the immediate site of the gear, the permit-holder must nevertheless be present at the immediate site of stationary gear for the opening and closing of each commercial fishing period. Baker, 878 P.2d at 647.